This
matter is before the court pursuant to Defendant Starwood
Resorts Worldwide, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings as to Plaintiff's Negligence per se Claim in
Plaintiff's Petition (Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings). (ECF 25). The matter is fully briefed and ready
for disposition.

BACKGROUND

Defendant
Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., (Starwood)
removed this matter from the Circuit Court of the County of
St. Louis, Missouri, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332,
1441, and 1446.

As
relevant to the pending Motion, the allegations of Plaintiff
Lana Weinbach's Complaint are as follows. Plaintiff is
the daughter of Ben and Sarah Weinbach. Sarah Weinbach died
in 1977, and Ben Weinbach died in 2009. Plaintiff lived at
8720 West Kingsbury Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, with both of
her parents prior to their deaths, and continued to live
there through the date the Complaint was filed. During their
lives, Ben and Sarah Weinbach purchased shares of stock in
ITT Corporation, which, after a merger, became shares of
stock in Starwood (the Starwood Shares). Ben and Sarah
Weinbach purchased the Starwood Shares jointly with
Plaintiff. Upon her father's death, Plaintiff became the
sole owner of the Starwood Shares. (ECF 1.1, ¶¶
9-14).

Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that, in 2003, Starwood reported the
Starwood Shares as abandoned to the State Treasurer (the
Treasurer), and that, prior to doing so, Starwood
“unquestionably knew the whereabouts of”
Plaintiff and Ben Weinbach, and failed to “send any
communication of any type” to Plaintiff and Ben
Weinbach regarding the Starwood Shares it deemed abandoned.
Plaintiff also alleges that as a result of a 2006 transaction
between Starwood and Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., (Host),
Plaintiff and Mr. Weinbach received shares in Host (the Host
Shares); that, at the time the transaction between Starwood
and Host took place, Plaintiff's and Mr. Weinbach's
Starwood Shares were in the possession of the Treasurer; and
that, therefore, the Host Shares belonging to Plaintiff and
Mr. Weinbach were delivered to the Treasurer. Plaintiff also
alleges that, in 2009, the Treasurer sold the Starwood Shares
and the Host Shares, and that neither Starwood nor the
Treasurer published or mailed to Plaintiff or Ben Weinbach
notice prior to the Treasurer's doing so. (ECF 1.1,
¶¶ 15-42).

Plaintiff
alleges that Starwood's conduct did not comply with the
Missouri Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act
(MDUPA), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 447.500-447.595, because
“it did not make proper efforts to locate Ben Weinbach
and [Plaintiff] and did not provide them proper notice that
it deemed their Starwood Shares to be abandoned and
transferred to the Treasurer.” Plaintiff alleges that
because Starwood did not comply with the MDUPA's notice
requirements, it is not entitled to be relieved from
liability under MDUPA § 447.545.1.[1] Finally,
Plaintiff alleges that Starwood did not comply with the
delivery requirement of MDUPA § 447.545.4,
[2] and
is, therefore, not entitled to be relieved of liability under
that statutory provision. (ECF 1.1, ¶¶ 45-47).

In
Count I, Negligence Per Se, Plaintiff alleges that Starwood
had obligations under MDUPA § 447.539.5, [3] MDUPA §
447.503(11) (“reasonable and necessary diligence”
is consistent with “good business practice”;
holders shall send notice regarding unclaimed property first
class mail, postage prepaid, and marked “Address
Correction Requested”), and the Missouri Code of State
Regulations, 15 C.S.R. 50-3.070(3)(C) (requiring
“[h]olders to exercise reasonable and necessary
diligence as is consistent with good business practice in
attempting to locate owners of abandoned property”),
and that Starwood violated those obligations by
“improperly presuming the Starwood Shares were
abandoned, and transferring them to the Treasurer, and by its
failure to communicate with Ben Weinbach and [Plaintiff]
regarding the Shares and their alleged abandonment.”
Plaintiff further alleges that as a result of Starwood's
conduct she “would still possess [the] Starwood Shares
and the Host Shares or would have been in a position to sell
them at some previous time.” (ECF 1.1, ¶¶
48-57). In Count II, Plaintiff alleges Conversion. Only Count
I is the subject of Defendant's Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings.

In a
diversity case, such as the matter under consideration, a
court must interpret the applicable state law
“‘in determining whether the elements of the
[alleged] offenses have been pled.'” Ashley
County, 552 F.3d at 665 (quoting Moses.com Sec.,
Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d
1052, 1062 (8th Cir. 2005)).

LEGAL
FRAMEWORK FOR NEGLIGENCE PER SE

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;While
&ldquo;negligence in a particular situation depends on
whether or not a reasonably prudent person would have
anticipated danger and provided against it, &rdquo;
&ldquo;[n]egligence per se arises where the legislature
pronounces in a statute what the conduct of a reasonable
person must be, whether or not the common law would require
similar conduct.&rdquo; Lowdermilk v. Vescovo Bldg. and
Realty Co., Inc., 91 S.W.3d 617, 628 (Mo.Ct.App. 2002)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). When the
legislature has done so, &ldquo;the court [] adopts the
statutory standard of care to define the standard of conduct
of the reasonable person.&rdquo; Lowdermilk, 91
S.W.3d at 628 (citing Restatement Torts (Second) &sect;&sect;
286, 288 (1965)). &ldquo;Negligence per se &lsquo;is a form
of ordinary negligence that results from the violation of a
statute.&#39;&rdquo; Lowdermilk, 91 S.W.3d at 628
(quoting 57A Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 727 (1989)). Where
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.